No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars developed an interest in Central Asia unmatched since the days of the “Great Game.” Scholarship initially focused on contemporary issues rather than historical analyses, since Central Asia was composed of obscure, newly independent, and strategically important states. With the opening of archives in the 1990s, however, historians began to pursue research on the identity and ideology of modern Central Asia, the legacy of the Soviet Union and Muslim modernism, and the challenges to nationalism and Islam. Drawing from postcolonial studies, these works have filled important voids and expanded our ability to analyze the multitude of factors that function in the conceptualization of the nation and the adoption of national ideas by the Central Asians themselves.
1. In addition to the works discussed in this review, see Allen Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: The Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780–1910 (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Shoshana Keller, To Moscow Not Mecca: The Soviet Campaign against Islam in Central Asia, 1917–1941 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001); Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Terry Martin, An Affirmative-Action Empire: Ethnicity and the Soviet State, 1923–1938 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2001); and Douglas Northrop, Uzbek Women and the Veil (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); and Bruce Privratsky, Muslim Turkistan: Kazak Religion and Collective Memory (Richmond: Curzon 2001). There have also been a number of valuable doctoral dissertations addressing Soviet national identity formation in Central Asia: Cassandra Cavanaugh, “Biology, Backwardness, and Byt: Russian Medicine in Central Asia, 1868–1932,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 2000; Bhavna Dave, “Politics of Language Revival: National Identity and State Building in Kazakhstan,” Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, NY, 1996; Adrienne Lynn Edgar, “The Creation of Soviet Turkmenistan, 1924–1938,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1999; Francine Hirsch, “Empire of Nations: Colonial Technologies and the Making of the Soviet Union, 1917–1939,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1998; Marianne Kamp, “Unveiling Uzbek Women: Liberation, Representation and Discourse, 1906–1929,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1998; Roberta Maria Micallet, “The Role of Literature and Intellectuals in National Identity Construction: The Case of Uzbekistan,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1997; Jeff Sahadeo, “Creating a Russian Colonial Community: City, Nation, and Empire in Tashkent, 1865–1923,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 2000; and John Schoberlein, “Identity in Central Asia: Construction and Contention in the Conceptions of ‘Özbek,’ ‘Tǎjik,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘Samarqandi’ and Other Groups,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1994.Google Scholar
2. Martha Brill Olcott, The Kazakhs, 2nd edn (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995). A sampling of notable Soviet surveys of Kazak history includes: Saktagan Baishev, Torzhestvo Leninskikh idei v Kazakhstane (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1960); Ermukhan Bek-mekhanov, Prisoedinenie Kazakhstana k Rossii (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1957); Akai Nusupbekov, ed., Istoriia Kazakhskoi SSR: s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 5 vols (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1977–1981); and Salyk Zimanov, ed., Voprosy natsional'no-gosudarstvennogo stroitel'stva v Srednei Azii i Kazakhstane (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1977).Google Scholar
3. There has been a cottage industry of republishing works of the Soviet-sanctioned Kazak heroes: Chokan Valikhanov, Abai Kunanbai, Mukhtar Auezov, and Kanysh Satpaev. Rehabilitated Kazak intellectuals are also making a return: particularly visible are the works of Sandjar Asfendiarov, Uraz Dzhandosov, Beimbet Mailin, Turar Ryskulov, Saken Seifullin, Mukhamedjan Tynyshpaev.Google Scholar
4. Zhulduzbek Abylkhozhin, Traditsionnaia struktura Kazakhstana: sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie aspekty funktsionirovaniia i transformatsii, 1920–1930e gg. (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1991); Dina Amanzholova Kazakhskii avtonomizm i Rossiia: istoriia dvizheniia Alash (Moscow: Rossiia molodaia, 1994) and Ausgangspunkte moderner Staatlichkeit: Kasachstan 1900–1920 (Berlin: Schwarz, 2003); and Manash Kozybaev, Kazakhstan na rubezhe vekov: razmyshleniia i poiski (Almaty: Gylym, 2000). As evidenced by this list, the most comprehensive historical studies are still published in Russian rather than Kazak. Two notable exceptions are Mukhtar Maghauin, Qazaq tarikhynyn alippesi: derekti tolgham (Almaty: Qazaqstan, 1995) and Mambet Qoigeldiev and Talas Omarbekov, Tarikh taghylymy ne deidi? (Almaty: Ana tili, 1993).Google Scholar
5. See Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 17. Khalid could have figured much more prominently in this work. Brief encapsulations of his work can also be found in the articles, “Nationalizing the Revolution in Central Asia: The Transformation of Jadidism, 1917–1920,” in Ronald Suny and Terry Martin, eds, A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 145–162, and “Tashkent 1917: Muslim Politics in Revolutionary Turkestan,” Slavic Review, Vol. 2, 1996, pp. 270–296.Google Scholar
6. Sabol's essay complements a rich new literature on Alash Orda which builds on the republishing of Georgii Safarov, Kolonial'naia revoliutsiia: opyt Turkestana (Almaty: Zhalyn, 1996) and new works: Dina Amanzholova, Kazakhskii avtonomizm i Rossii: istoriia dvizheniia Alash (Moscow: Russkaia molodaia, 1994), Kenes Nurpeisov, Alash ham Alashorda (Almaty: Atatek, 1995), and Mukhtar Qul-Mukhamed, including Alash qairatkerleri saiasi: quqyqtyq kozqarastarynyng evoliutsiiasy (Almaty: Atamura, 1998).Google Scholar
7. Korenizatsiia literally implied the “rooting” of indigenous languages and native party cadres in Soviet institutions in order to increase local knowledge and public accessibility to Soviet ideology and political offices.Google Scholar
8. Terry Martin, An Affirmative-Action Empire: Ethnicity and the Soviet State, 1923–1938 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2001), p. 126.Google Scholar
9. It is surprising, for example, that Payne ignores the particularly relevant Zhulduzbek Abylkhozhin, Traditsionnaia struktura Kazakhstana: sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie aspekty funktsionirovaniia i transformatsii, 1920–1930e gg. (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1991).Google Scholar